Pim v Coyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barton, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 May 1907
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: (1907. No. 286.)
• Date: 03 May 1907

Pim

and

Coyle.

Barton, J.

Appeal.

(1907. No. 286.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1907.

Local registration of title — Registered owner — Transfer of interest in lands — Registration of judgment mortgage — Subsequent registration of transfer — Priority — Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 66), ss. 25, 35.

Held, by the Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of Barton, J.), that the first registered owner of the lands had not effectually parted with the beneficial interest in the lands at the date of the judgment and its registration, and that consequently the judgment mortgage charged and affected such interest in priority to the title of the defendant.

Civil-Bill Appeal.

Margaret Coyle, the mother of the defendant, was the registered owner, subject to equities, of the lands of Lisinigan, situate in the county of Cavan, under the provisions of the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891.

Margaret Coyle having a beneficial share or interest in the lands, by an instrument of transfer dated 14th April, 1905, transferred the lands to her son, the defendant. The defendant neglected to register his title until 4th May, 1905, upon which day, at 3.31 o' clock, p.m., he registered his title as owner. In the meantime, the plaintiffs, namely, on 2nd May, 1905, recovered judgment against Margaret Coyle for £200 debt and £10 costs, and registered their judgment under the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891, on 4th May, 1905, at 11 a.m., several hours before the defendant was registered as owner.

On the 3rd March, 1906, the plaintiffs issued an equity civil-bill against the defendant to have it declared that the sum of £200 debt and £10 costs was well charged upon the defendant's interest in the above-mentioned lands, and for a sale and receiver. The County Court Judge dismissed the equity civil-bill, and the plaintiffs appealed from that decision.

At the hearing of the appeal his Lordship, upon the application of the plaintiffs, amended the equity civil-bill by adding, instead of the prayer therein, the following:— “That the principal sum of £210, and interest thereon at 4 per cent., from the 2nd May, 1905, be declared well charged on the beneficial interest which Margaret Coyle had in the lands of Lisinigan at the date of plaintiffs' judgment and of its registration as a mortgage, prior to the registration of defendant's title as owner of said lands.”

The question raised was whether or not the defendant's title on being registered on 4th May, 1905, related back to the date of the execution of the transfer, viz., 14th April, 1905, and whether Margaret Coyle had effectually parted with her beneficial interest in the lands by that unregistered transfer; or whether her beneficial interest remained so as to be chargeable by the judgment mortgage until the transferee was registered as owner.

Jonathan Pim, for the plaintiffs, contended that the transfer of 14th April conferred no estate upon the transferee until he was registered as owner of the lands so transferred; that section 25 of the Local Registration Act, under which a registered title related back to the date of conveyance, applied only to conveyances before the first registration, and that the effect of the registration of a transfer of registered land was regulated not by section 25 but by section 35; that Margaret Coyle did not effectually part with her beneficial interest in the lands by the transfer until the transferee was registered as owner of the lands transferred; that, consequently, the registration of plaintiffs' judgment as a mortgage charged and affected the beneficial interest which Margaret Coyle still had at the date of the judgment; and that the subsequent registration of defendant's title vested in him an estate which was subject to plaintiffs' previously registered burden.

Law Smith, K.C., for the defendant, argued that sect. 25 of the Local Registration of Title Act was general in its terms and application, and was not limited to conveyances before first registration, and that the defendant' s title on registration related back to 14th April, 1905, the date of the instrument of transfer; that the provisions of sect. 35 as to the transfer of registered land were superfluous and unnecessary, having regard to the terms of sect. 25; that Margaret Coyle had, consequently, effectually parted with all her beneficial interest in the lands by the unregistered...